Identification And Solution Of Falsely Making VAT Special Invoice

VAT,as the central and local tax sharing tax,is the largest tax in China at present.It is also the focus of supply-side structural reform and an important part of national tax.The act of falsely drawing up special invoices for value-added tax(here in after referred to as falsely drawing up special invoices)has seriously eroded the tax base of value-added tax and posed a challenge to the seriousness of the tax law.Fair competition to break the market order has caused great losses to the national interests.After the business reform and increase,the whole industry enters the value-added tax deduction chain.In order to evade the tax,the departments and enterprises make up the false cost of tax,and the cases of false special invoices show a high incidence trend,and increase year by year.But at present,there are many different opinions on the identification of false opening in the academic circles of criminal law,judicial organs,tax authorities and other subjects,especially on the understanding of the qualitative differences between administrative law and criminal law,the boundary of false opening,the problems of crime and non-crime,and the constitutive requirements of false opening.Differences,but also common court judgments in the first instance and second instance and retrial judgments are inconsistent,but also often appear in the courts and tax authorities on specific cases of false judgment inconsistent cases.On the one hand,the protection of state tax creditor's rights and interests,on the other hand,the protection of taxpayers' legitimate rights and interests,in-depth study of the vague boundary of the act of falsely issuing special votes,so that different acts of falsely issuing special votes are subject to different penalties,has great significance.The false special invoice infringes on the mixed object,superficially infringing on the management norms of VAT special invoice,but in fact,it is harmful to the national VAT deduction chain.The crime of falsely issuing special votes should be a consequential offence,and the result of the loss of state tax revenue is an important basis for judging the crime of falsely issuing special votes and sentencing.Through a deep analysis of various specific problems of the act of fraudulent opening,the author compares the different rules of dealing with the act of fraudulent opening,and expresses that the actors have no purpose of stealing or cheating taxes subjectively,and that the act of fraudulent opening,which objectively does not result in the loss of state tax,should not be punished as a crime of fraudulent opening ofspecial votes,but should also satisfy the lack of The loss of state tax can be regarded as a false view.Suggestions are put forward on further revising the criteria of false opening of levy and administration,improving the inspection power,speeding up the appearance of false opening of judicial interpretation and guiding cases by the Supreme Court,and consolidating the tax policy of false opening and recognition,and promoting VAT legislation.